Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

VS Testing - Annoyance Of The Day

joeyDotNet — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:27:58 GMT

This is mostly a rant, so feel free to skip this one. Really. (Most folks are probably already enjoying

VS Testing - Annoyance Of The Day

joeyDotNet — Fri, 25 May 2007 19:26:02 GMT

VS Testing - Annoyance Of The Day

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

Tom Marsh — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:44:04 GMT

Todd, thanks for pointing out the oversight. I'll file a bug for us to consider matching teh behavior of NUnit and MbUnit for Assert.Equals.

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

Todd — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:43:53 GMT

Another oversight in TS Unit testing that may cause some hideous bugs is that the Assert class does not override the static Object Equals() method. A developer may write: Assert.Equals(expected, actual); In a unit test expecting that an assertion would be raised and instead it does nothing since Object.Assert() just returns true or false and allowing the unit test to pass. While this code would compile for TS, NUnit & MbUnit, both NUnit and MbUnit override the Assert.Equals() method of object and correctly make your unit test fail with "Assert.Equals should not be used for Assertions"

MbUnit vs. NUnit Vs. Team System Unit Testing - Choosing a unit test framework

Community Blogs — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 01:20:47 GMT

MbUnit is gaining some momentum as one of the nicest unit testing frameworks for .NET out there. I just

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

Eduardo Miranda — Sat, 27 May 2006 17:56:20 GMT

I posted a workaround for exception/message problem at MSDN. For me it's working, but I would appreciate some feedbacks

http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/ProductFeedback/ViewWorkaround.aspx?FeedbackID=FDBK44621#1

Eduardo

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

Roy Osherove — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:01:00 GMT

David:
The QA is not the one doing Test Driven Development- that's why it's called "Developer Testing".
However, I agree about the localization issues that can arise. There are better ways to check for the message ina multi localized way. My issue was that is the quality tools in VSTS want to be a NUnit killer, they should start out with the basic NUnit features and make them work first.

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

David M. Kean — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:12:00 GMT

> they just want to use the simplest thing that works

I would prefer the QA tested for the correct exception, rather than the simplest thing that worked.

Regarding testing the message - you would start having issues with localization if that was the case. I would like the ability to run some sort of RegEx over the exception message.

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

Roy Osherove — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:13:00 GMT

Jamie:
You'd think that, but even if that's the case, that feature does not work (i.e: you don't see that message written anywhere if the test fails...)

re: Bugs and Missing Features with Team System Unit Testing: Part I

Jamie Cansdale — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:33:00 GMT

You prompted me to write a little about VSTT support in TestDriven.NET:

http://weblogs.asp.net/nunitaddin/archive/2006/01/25/436420.aspx